In article <kf6dnSEHKty9q1nanZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Chuck" <somewhere@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
edgeofthings.info> spake thusly:
> >> 5) Do you think Roszca had changed in the two years since he killed
> >> Tessa? Was Richie doing the right thing by sparing Roszca?
> > If Roszca is no longer a druggie, then he has changed. Killing him
> > would do no good.
[snip]
> in my mispent catholic youth I was taught that God will forgive all
> sins if you are sincere in your contrition. however you were also
> obligated to accept just punishment from civil authorites for those
> sins if they were also crimes. in other words, a robber cannot be
> forgiven if he does not make restitution and a murderer cannot be
> forgiven if he does not accept the just punishment of civil
> authorities.
Richie is not a civil authority. If Richie would testify against
Roszca, then perhaps Roszca would go to jail. But in the modern-day
world, Roszca would almost certainly not be sentenced to death.
Killing Roszca is not justice equivalent to civil authorities.
Meanwhile, restitution for thievery is very different from a death
sentence for murder. A thief's crime is wrongful transfer of
property. By repaying the property, the original crime is effectively
cancelled. A murderer cannot make restitution. Even if you kill the
murderer, you end up with two dead people instead of none.
So, what are the reasons that we punish people in a secular society,
and how do they apply to Roszca?
* incapacitation: not applicable to Roszca, who clearly had no
intention of committing murder again.
* rehabilitation: not applicable to killing anyone. And Roszca
apparently had rehabilitated himself.
* restitution: not applicable to any murder case, where restitution is
not possible, as per above. [Well, you can have the murderer pay
the family for lost wages and such as a partial restitution, but
killing the murderer is not restitution.]
* deterrence: not applicable, since the larger population would not
know why he died.
* vengeance: this is really the only reason that one would want to
kill Roszca, in a lex talionis kinda sense. But this is not what
civil authorities in modern nations do for unpremeditated murder.
And while DM and Richie both felt they had the right to exact
vengeance, as the injured parties, both also chose not to exercise
their right. IMHO, this was for all the right reasons.
> I'm reluctant to accept that murderers should get a pass just
> because they "changed" their life.
That's not the issue. The issue is if *Richie* should take action,
and in particular, should kill Roszca. There is a huge difference
between society holding a murderer accountable, vs. a friend of the
victim taking an eye for an eye.
- Morty
|
